NY Ex-Rep. Jamaal Bowman launches Super PAC to defeat pro-Israel pols ‘from Yonkers to Gaza'
Israel-bashing former New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman is creating a Super PAC aimed at ousting pro-Israel candidates.
'From Yonkers to Gaza and everywhere in between, we will fight for justice and reclaim our humanity,' says the new 'Built to Win' Super Pac pushed by Bowman, who was ousted in a Democratic primary last year in large part because of his anti-Israel stance.
Bowman was even more explicit about his new PAC's anti-Israel mission during a recent interview.
'Any candidate that supports [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu and genocide more than their constituents, any candidate that's tied up with corrupt crypto money, any candidate tied up with the real-estate lobby as opposed to renters, we're going to go after those candidates very aggressively,' Bowman told City & State.
Former Westchester County Executive George Latimer, a pro-Israel moderate, trounced Bowman by more than 10 percentage points in the past Democratic primary for the 16th House District that takes in much of Westchester County and portions of The Bronx.
Rabbi Jonathan Morgenstern, Jewish leader in Westchester, told The Post that Bowman again is showing his 'true colors.
'Bowman is a true, authentic antisemite,' said Morgenstern, head of Young Israel of Scarsdale, a modern orthodox synagogue.
'The [super PAC] shows his true colors. He's tripling down on attacking the Jewish people and the only Jewish state. It's disturbing and sad.'
Liora Rez, a founder the watchdog group StopAntisemitism, said, 'Even if someone wanted to get more antisemitic, anti-Israel candidates elected, it's hard to imagine they'd give their money to a failure like Jamaal Bowman.
'He already wasted the money that was donated to his own losing campaign,' Rez said.
'Americans overwhelmingly stand with Israel and the Jewish people who have been a contributing and vital part of this great nation since the founding.'
New York State Democratic Party Chairman Jay Jacobs said, 'Former Rep. Bowman would be better to devote his new PAC to helping underserved people in our communities as well as promoting the economic interests of working class Americans instead of continuing his antisemitic, pro-terrorist advocacy in a pitiful attempt to retain even a drop of political relevance.'
Rory Lancman, a Jewish civil-rights lawyer and former Queens councilman, added, 'Last year, voters across the country said loud and clear that America stands with Israel and against anti-Semitism and terrorism, and they said it especially loudly to Jamaal Bowman.'
He noted that Bowman announced the formation of his political action committee days after the Palestinian terror group Hamas held a propaganda-filled parade as they handed over the bodies of tiny slain Israeli hostages Kfir and Ariel Bibas, who were just 9 months and 4 years old when they were violently abducted, along with the remains of their mother Shiri.
That's 'all you need to know about Bowman's, and his PAC's, values — and, frankly, its prospects,' Lancman said.
Latimer's coalition of backes included voters turned off by Bowman's criticism of Israel in its war against Hamas in Gaza after the terrorist group's Oct. 7, 2023, attack on the Jewish state.
His well-funded backers included the United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that spent a staggering $14 million in the race, and a cryptocurrency group called Fair Shake that bankrolled another $2 million worth of ad spots.
Bowman accused Israel of committing 'genocide' in Gaza and belatedly apologized for denying the horrific rapes of Israeli women during the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas that killed an estimated 1,200 people — including 33 Americans.
The weekend before the primary vote, Bowman vowed to 'show f–king AIPAC the power of the motherf–king South Bronx' during a manic rally alongside fellow 'Squad' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York City.
In Bowman's concession speech, he doubled down on his stance, telling supporters: 'We will continue to fight for a free Palestine, and God help us that we live in a better world where when we say, 'Free Palestine,' it is not antisemitic.'
But even some black activists said the Super Pac won't revive Bowman's career.
'Jamaal Bowman's loss wasn't about Israel—it was about his complete failure to represent the priorities of the Black community,' said Darius Jones, senior adviser to National Black Empowerment Action Fun, in a statement. 'Voters rejected him because he championed an extreme agenda that ignored their real concerns.
'You can't oppose public safety in Black neighborhoods, deny Black families access to quality education through school choice, and neglect infrastructure and small business investment in Black communities while expecting Black support,' Jones said. 'That's why he lost—plain and simple.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
6 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Unilateral war won't build a safer world
The debate about the military effectiveness of the U.S. airstrikes against Iran misses a more profound point: Brilliant battlefield success by itself will not ensure a nuclear-free Iran. The U.S. attacks capped a year-plus Israeli campaign that utterly exposed Iran's 'axis of resistance' as a paper tiger. My own guess is that the strikes were highly effective. Uranium enrichment facilities rely on elaborate machinery, steady power supply and structurally sturdy environments. All that is likely to have been compromised by the 14 bunker-buster bombs that hit their targets with precision. But even assuming the damage was severe, most experts I have spoken to estimate that the strikes would have set back Iran's nuclear program by one to two years. By contrast, the Iran nuclear deal finalized in 2015 placed Iran's nuclear program in check for 10 to 15 years.


Politico
7 minutes ago
- Politico
Gavin Newsom sues Fox News for $787M in defamation case over Trump call
Gavin Newsom is taking a page right out of Donald Trump's media playbook. The California governor accused Fox News of defamation in a lawsuit Friday morning, alleging the network should fork over $787 million after host Jesse Watters claimed Newsom lied about his phone calls with Trump, who ordered National Guard troops to Los Angeles this month. Newsom's lawyers argue Watters' program misleadingly edited a video of Trump to support the claim. The Democratic likely presidential hopeful's request for damages is nearly identical to the $787.5 million sum Fox News paid Dominion Voting Systems in 2023 to settle another defamation case over election falsehoods. And it comes amid a spate of lawsuits from Trump against major media and other companies that resulted in multi-million dollar settlements. 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences — just like it did in the Dominion case,' Newsom told POLITICO in a statement. 'Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.' Public officials must clear an extremely high legal standard to prevail in defamation cases, as the U.S. Supreme Court established six decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. But the lawsuit's filing marks a pointed escalation in Newsom's feud with the Republican president and his allies in media. Newsom is suing in his personal capacity and has agreed to pay any possible fines or penalties from his campaign account, aides said. Any proceeds from the case to Newsom would be disseminated to anti-Trump causes. Newsom's suit echoes Trump's own lawsuits against major news networks like ABC, which agreed in December to pay Trump $15 million to settle a defamation case over George Stephanopoulos' inaccurate claim that Trump was found civilly liable for rape. (Trump was actually found civilly liable for sexual abuse, though the judge in the case later ruled that it was accurate in 'common modern parlance' to say Trump had been found liable for rape.) Trump in another suit accused CBS' '60 Minutes' last fall of misleadingly editing an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential race. At least two executives from the company have since left their posts and the unresolved CBS suit has become a central drama in the pending sale of a controlling stake in Paramount. Newsom's lawyers said he is prepared to drop the lawsuit if Fox retracts its claims and Watters apologizes to him on air. A copy of Newsom's complaint filed in the Delaware Superior Court — in the same state where Fox News is incorporated — claims he last spoke with Trump for approximately 16 minutes by phone on June 7, two days before the president deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops over Newsom's objections to quell protests in Los Angeles. Trump, however, told reporters on June 10 he had spoken with Newsom 'a day ago,' implying a conversation took place the same day 700 U.S. Marines were deployed to Los Angeles. Newsom refuted Trump's claim in a post on X minutes later. That evening, Watters played an edited clip of Trump's remarks on air before asking, 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?' He simultaneously showed a screenshot of the president's call history, obtained by Fox host John Roberts, showing Trump's last call with Newsom was on June 7, as the governor had claimed. Newsom's lawyers argue the incident meets the legal standard for defamation and potentially harmed the governor's standing with voters in future elections. Additionally, they claimed it violated California's Unfair Competition Law, which outlaws 'deceptive and unfair business practices.' Mark Bankson and another private lawyer representing Newsom, Michael Teter, summarized their case in a five-page letter to Fox on Friday littered with biting insults of the network's credibility and sarcastic jabs at Trump's mental acuity. 'It is perhaps unsurprising that a near-octogenarian with a history of delusionary public statements and unhinged late-night social media screeds might confuse the dates,' the lawyers wrote. 'But Fox's decision to cover up for President Trump's error cannot be so easily dismissed.' Newsom's suit adds further drama to his love-hate relationship with Fox. He's an avid viewer who's enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship with the network at times over the last three decades, reveling in the ability to go toe-to-toe with firebrand hosts like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly in front of millions of conservatives. Yet he's often decried Fox's rightward tilt while smiling for its cameras, as he did in 2023 when heaccused Hannity of helping Florida's Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, cheat in a primetime debate. His relationship with Trump is more complex but follows a similar rhythm of a tense rivalry punctuated by moments of collaboration. This year alone, Newsom hugged Trump as the president deplaned to tour wildfire damage in Los Angeles, only to sue him over tariffs months later before savagely attacking the president in a June primetime address that catapulted him back to the forefront of Democratic resistance against the president's agenda. Newsom's tense face-off with Trump put him squarely in conservative media's bullseye. Just last week, the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post mocked Newsom on its front page with a photo of him sipping wine in Napa on the same weekend Trump called in Guard troops. Newsom's press office has since said he was at a cancer fundraiser honoring his late mother, who died of breast cancer. The governor's legal team is no stranger to high-profile defamation cases. Bankson represented the parents of an elementary school student killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre in a defamation suit against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Bankson's team secured a verdict in 2022 ordering Jones to pay $49.3 million in total damages.


Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
California judge who blocked Trump National Guard order hit with impeachment resolution
FIRST ON FOX: A Republican lawmaker is filing impeachment articles against a judge who temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's control of the National Guard in California during this month's riots in Los Angeles. Rep. Randy Fine, R-La., is filing a resolution to remove U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer from the bench on Friday. He told Fox News Digital that he felt the judge's decision was "political." "The goal is to get judges to do their jobs. If we're not going to try to hold accountable the ones that aren't, then they have no incentive to stop," Fine said. It comes as Republicans continue to push back on Democratic officials trying to block Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration throughout the country. The days-long riots in Los Angeles were spurred by ICE raids in Hispanic and Latino neighborhoods, leading to activists clashing with law enforcement and burning cars as a sign of resistance. Trump, accusing California's progressive officials of not doing enough to stop the situation, bypassed Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom to order the National Guard into Los Angeles to restore order. Critics of the move said it needlessly escalated an already tense situation, and accused Trump and his allies of exaggerating the violence. Breyer issued a temporary order blocking Trump's deployment of federal troops earlier this month, however, in response to a lawsuit brought by California. "At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not," the court opinion said. "His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith." Breyer's ruling was quashed last week when a three-judge panel on the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it was within Trump's authority to federalize the California National Guard. Breyer is just the latest judge to be brought under House GOP scrutiny after several Trump executive actions got held up in court. Trump allies have called for the impeachment of multiple judges, though House GOP leadership has made clear there's little appetite to follow through on such moves – particularly when removal by the Senate is unlikely. Fine acknowledged the long odds but insisted the resolution was a potent messaging tool. "I think it's worth doing. I don't know that we can pass it, I don't know that the Senate would remove him from office, but I think failing to avail ourselves of the remedies that the framers intended was a mistake," Fine said.